Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Bush Signs Torture Ban


Jaime

Recommended Posts

From the Boston Globe here is the rest of the [url="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=2"]article[/url]

[quote]Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

[b]After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.[/b][/quote]

Edited by jaime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Bush fans are being so quiet on this particular thread.


And as quiet as this story has been, it certainly puts to rest the myth of the "liberal media"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 16 2006, 07:55 PM']No one wants to rise to Bush's defense?
figures
[right][snapback]858255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yeah, wait and see what he does first before you judge him. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen what he did

There was a bill calling for an all out ban on torture. And with his signing statement, he nullified it.

I'm judging that as completely immoral

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.[/quote]

This is what he added to the Torture ban. This states that the President can circumvent the ban in cases of terrorism.

Congress passed this bill so overwhelmingly, Bush couldn't veto it. So he did this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Jan 16 2006, 10:13 PM']It makes me wonder what he knows that makes him think that torture just might occasionally be a good idea....
[right][snapback]858350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How about what he doesn't know?

He doesn't know that the president cannot arbitrarily redefine laws to suit his needs.

He doesn't know that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that states torture doesn't work

He doesn't know that torture is immoral in all cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he's either hopped up on a power trip or honestly believes that torture is sometimes justified....that's all.

I didn't make any mention whether I think what he did was right or wrong, or whether I ever think that torture is justified in any instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blovedwolfofgod

any treaty that is signed with a reservation pretty much means that reservation applies to all because of reciprocity. most countries are reciprocal. thats why we do nothing about genocide, because reagen signed the treaty and his reservation clause implied that it only applied to us when we wanted it to. if the reservation implies that we can waive anything, everyone can waive it too and nothing can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...